On the grounds that you disagree or disapprove of someone's politics you'd backstab them. So what is to stop you from doing it to other allies on those grounds? And I am going to put this bluntly, you are sounding like a leftist right now (this is exactly what a leftist would do). This is the sort of thing the communists did, they did it to the Socialist Revolutionaries and their other allies during the Russian revolution. They did it during the Spanish Civil War. And in many more places.
Think about it this way, though morality is universal (or should be)- everyone has their own take on it. It doesn't matter if you are correct about them, there are good reasons for not doing this (besides not acting in an immoral manner). That this opens you up to attack. Because, for one people will see you as the worst scum for doing this and thus follow your precedent, or two, because people have differing beliefs and there are people who find your beliefs abhorrent, would you want someone else to do it to you, or set the precedent that they can do to you what you have done to others. You are forgetting the Golden and Silver Rules, you want to treat other people in a manner in which you do not want to be treated and if the roles were reversed you would not at all accept your own reasoning for why you are treated this way.
You just advocated for breaking trust, betrayal, oathbreaking, a particular form of murder... It is what tvtropes calls a "Uriah Gambit". And you are saying it would be alright, because it is the correct class of person. It is alright when we do it to them, you say. Yeah, no. Morality is universal, and doesn't bend to your wants. If it is incorrect to do it to one person or kind, it is incorrect to do it to another. And, as Unabrask said, if you are willing to do it to one group, who isn't to say you aren't going to start expanding the list? After all, this is exactly how it happened in the past. But, yes, you don't want to exterminate a group of people, you just want to send them to their deaths in the scenario you have power over them. As I said, you are forgetting important foundational rules of morality. You cannot pick or choose who morality applies to, it either has to be universal or it has to be absolute (or both), or otherwise it is not morality.
So backstab people, so they don't backstab you first. Yeah no, that isn't how it works. And really I don't think there are enough of them to matter anyways, and I don't think the common people are going to care much about one side having some bad people, when the other side has even more. And if you want to avoid them creating issues, you break them up into smaller units and then work on integrating them into the war effort.
Anyways, I certainly hope that things don't go insane and then boil over into civil war. Because, one civil wars are bad and I for some reason I still hold out hope for things to be resolved politically, and two I don't want to side with Nazi Furries either. Nazis and Furries are bad enough as it as, but Nazi Furries? That is even worse. I can't imagine what would happen when they face the Communist Furries, probably something horrifying.
And, really, I find it vexxing that I need to tell people that moral consideration applies to everyone- even people we dislike and remind people that the Golden and Silver Rules still applies to Nazi Furries, even though they are a) Nazis and b) Furries. If we are making exceptions to morality, then we are falling to the same trap as the left. "It is alright if we do it", "It is alright if it is done to the right person", and so on.
I am pretty sure we are derailing the thread, and I probably should have thought about that first.
Anyways, I guess to make my post more relevant to the actual topic. I guess that when pursuing justice against groomers that we cannot forget basic morality? And that sometimes we need to have odd allies (hopefully not Nazi Furries).
